Such a lather people are in, because Rick Perry was cheered at the Republican debate last week for executing 234 death row prisoners in Texas. Actually, Perry didn't even have a chance to repond to the question, posed by Brian Williams, before the audience started applauding. The transcript goes like this:
Williams: Governor Perry, a question about Texas. Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. Have you…(APPLAUSE)
[also one person whistling]Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?
Well, of course not, Brian. What a question. Rick Perry doesn't "do" internal conflict! That's the whole point. Which, it had better be faced, some people see as a weakness and others, as a comforting strength.
"No, sir, I've never struggled with that at all," Perry replied evenly.
From the instant the applause began, the whole Internet blew up with howls of "creepy," "vile" and "horrible"; Ta-Nehisi Coates would write, "Apparently people were shocked by the applause here. The only thing that shocked me was that they didn't form a rumba line." Quite a number of conservatives got their knickers in a twist, too, expressing "revulsion" for the "ghouls" who were vicious and cruel enough to applaud Perry's record of executions.
But to assume that rank-and-file Republicans are cheering for executions simply because they are out for blood is irrational and wrong. They are far more likely to have cheered because, as we have long known, like a majority of Americans, they support the death penalty for violent crimes, and Perry has conclusively demonstrated that he shares their conviction. It's not news, surely, that Republicans love the idea of Law and Order, nor that they think Democrats are "soft on crime." Perry was, and is, merely doing the cowboy thing that every Republican presidential hopeful has done since forever. Please note: no Democratic presidential candidate can afford to be against the death penalty, either. They never, ever go on the record against it.
And don't think that support for the death penalty (or "ultimate justice," as Perry styled it in the debate) is limited to U.S. Republicans and/or conservatives. On a percentage basis, even more Japanese citizens favor capital punishment than we do, and only in the last ten years has support declined below half in the UK and in Western Europe generally. Worldwide, though there is a slow trend toward abolition, support is still surprisingly high.
But Jon Stewart, along with pretty much every observer on the left, rushed to interpret the applause as audible proof that Republicans are basically a slavering pack of bloodthirsty, inhuman monsters.
[spoken over pan across the debate audience, who look like a standard-issue TV audience] This is not your torch-and-pitchfork angry villager. These are people with firm opinions on which is the best brand of riding mower. The audience at this debate were the people that give out raisins on Halloween. They own The Blind Side on DVD. And yet, and yet, and yet... (lowers voice menacingly) they thirst for blood.
First of all, what? They aren't angry villagers but they give out raisins? This demographic description is less coherent than even the red 'n' blue hallucinations of David Brooks. I have no idea what Stewart is on about here, though I guess we can take it as read that his remarks constitute a stab in the general direction of, "these Republicans are regular, caring people, only bloodthirsty, and riding around on lawnmowers of the highest quality."
I am especially disappointed in Jon Stewart's failure to ask, "Can there be any even marginally rational reason why these people might be applauding for executions?" No! Instead Stewart chose the Dark Side, the quick and easy path to political yuks, saying ponderously, "Media: you're thinking about this with the wrong part of your brain... the brain part. [...] Guess what? The Reagan Library: it ain't a readin' library." And then he was all yapping about the limbic system, concluding by grabbing his balls, kind of, under the desk, to indicate Perry's visceral appeal to Republicans.
Are we really reduced to joking that the Republicans are dumb? Oh THAT'S novel. They can't spell, are you serious, Jon Stewart? That joke is not just exhausted, its assumptions are beyond false. Or at least, let's be clear: there are as many dumb progressives as there are Republicans, sure as shootin'. You'd think if Republicans were so dumb it would be child's play for the brainy Democrats to bamboozle them into passing some useful legislation, but this turns out to be well-nigh impossible. Plus, it is a stone fact that one of the best novels of the last century was written by a Wall Street Journal regular. Do I find that confusing? Yes, kind of but whatever, it's true.
Another regrettable moment in the Republican debate came with Williams' follow-up question to Rick Perry:
WILLIAMS: What do you make of…(APPLAUSE) [still applauding for Perry's earlier display of mucho macho]
What do you make of that dynamic that just happened here, the mention of the execution of 234 people drew applause?
PERRY: I think Americans understand justice. I think Americans are clearly, in the vast majority of — of cases, supportive of capital punishment. When you have committed heinous crimes against our citizens — and it’s a state-by-state issue, but in the state of Texas, our citizens have made that decision, and they made it clear, and they don’t want you [long pause here] to commit those crimes against our citizens. And if you do, you will face the ultimate justice.
That is, Perry's response included the words "they [Texas citizens] don't want you," meaning they don't want you, a hypothetical murderin' varmint, to get away with any bloody deeds in our state. But when he spoke these words he was looking right at Brian Williams and at everything he and the so-called "liberal media" stand for. He was basically saying, "I may not be able to argue things out too well with a Media Person like you, Brian Williams, but I know how I feel about right and wrong." The right has been winning elections on this message since the time of Adlai Stevenson. All the eloquence and reasonableness in the world can sometimes yield to the power of a real gallopin', gun-totin', g-droppin' Republican hombre.
Why single Jon Stewart out from the legions of commenters on the left who took the same line? Because I expect better than that from a leader of progressive opinion who has in the past come out very strongly against exactly this kind of irresponsible partisan hackery. More particularly, I expect more from a progressive leader (and Stewart is one, whether he likes it or not) who has got that kind of clout with the youngs.
Who can forget Stewart's legendary 2004 appearance on "Crossfire" in which he went so righteously nuts over this very issue?
BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is — if the indictment is — and I have seen you say this — that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white.STEWART: Yes.
BEGALA: Well, it's because, see, we're a debate show. [...]
STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.
And here is what Jon Stewart said less than a year ago at the conclusion of the Rally to Restore Fear and/or Sanity.
[T]he image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false. It is us through a funhouse mirror, and not the good kind that makes you slim and taller — but the kind where you have a giant forehead and an ass like a pumpkin and one eyeball.So, why would we work together? Why would you reach across the aisle to a pumpkin assed forehead eyeball monster? If the picture of us were true, our inability to solve problems would actually be quite sane and reasonable. Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own?
Excellent question, Mr. Stewart.
I could not be less of a fan of James Taranto, but his WSJ editorial last week was spot-on, for once. "[W]hatever one thinks of the death penalty or the audience's behavior last night, the harshness, self-righteousness and simple-mindedness of these responses belie the left's self-image as intellectually sophisticated and tolerant of other viewpoints."
The right in general fears and hates doubt, and sees careful consideration of all sides as pure pantywaisted weakness; the left sees the uncertainty required for careful deliberation as a mark of intellectual strength and wisdom. When Perry defended his record at the debate, I suspect the applause was really for his demonstration of absolute, doubt-free conviction, which is something the right respects and admires.
Clearly, we needn't—we can't—respect the views of fellow-citizens who literally want just to kill people. We can however sit at the table respectfully with those whose basic hope and expectation from government is safety and the tough-minded, trustworthy exercise of power. The left by contrast expects freedom, equality, compassion and a far greater say in things. These differences are substantial but they do not require us to demonize our ideological opponents or turn them into people who can't be reasoned with, who are sub-human, whose views are not worth considering. Nobody on the left really believes that whatever serial killer should just be wandering around loose, just as nobody on the right really believes that it is great to go around killing innocent people.
Leonard Cohen explained all about this so beautifully in Warsaw in 1985.
I don't know which side anybody's on any more and I don't really care. There is a moment when we have to transcend the side we're on and understand that we are creatures of a higher order. That doesn't mean that I don't wish you courage in your struggle. There is on both sides of this struggle men of good will. That is important to remember. On both sides of the struggle; some struggling for freedom, some struggling for safety.
There is a way to arrive at common ground, provided we can maintain just basic respect for the integrity of the other side. But we're never going to get to that so long as opinion leaders like Stewart continue to take every cheap shot that comes their way. If progressives are the tolerant ones, by gum, then let them start toleratin'.
Perry may be a secessionist whack job, but he is right in tune with the Strong Man persona that many, many Americans want from their elected officials. If he is a couple of tacos short of a combination plate or if he isn't, either way, that doesn't matter a bit. He is supposed to have done so badly in school and whatnot but sometimes I think the Republicans spread those "he's so dumb" stories around on purpose, so that people will be pleasantly surprised when their candidates turn out to be not so dumb as all that. I thought it was quite cunning, actually, the way Perry delivered his Texas Pride shtick to Brian Williams the other day.
When Adlai Stevenson, (egghead, lawyer, rich guy and then-governor of Illinois) was running for president in the nineteen-fifties, a supporter once shrieked at him, "Mr. Stevenson, every intelligent person in America is for you!" Whether or not that was so, Stevenson really was super smart and I bet would have made a terrific president, not that Eisenhower was such a bad one. But Stevenson was an "elitist" intellectual through and through. "Madam, that is not enough!" he shouted back. "We need a majority!" Haha hilarious and yeah, he totally lost.
Maria Bustillos is the author of Dorkismo and Act Like A Gentleman, Think Like A Woman.
It's worth pointing out, too, that Bush's "aw shucks" Dumb Bro persona was just that - a persona. It's a rhetorical stance just as much as Obama's sermon-delivering tone he gets sometimes, or Reagan's story-tellin' grampa. Maybe we can argue about whether we like that Dumb Bro is an effective way to communicate, but taking it at face value is pretty stupid.
Dumb Bro may actually be dumb, bro.
@dntsqzthchrmn I be done seen 'bout everything when I see an elephant propose privatizing Social Security.
@deepomega Scroll down to "The Braniac" subhed.
@gnarlytrombone: Yes. Exactly. Thanks for the corroboration.
@dntsqzthchrmn: Maybe. But as Maria points out - do you really think that idiots can cut it in long-primary politics? I mean, jesus, we got rid of Palin, who genuinely WAS an unprepared moron, and she's one of the few Republican "contenders" that poll twenty points below Obama now.
@deepomega Whether GWB is a dummy or just chose to act like one for his entire presidency is completely irrelevant now that he has retired.
And even now, I don't see why does he still need to keep it up, what with that "the most nervous moment of my presidency was when I had to throw the first pitch at 2001 WS" thing that came out today. If he keeps acting like a dummy for the rest of his life, than he is de facto a dummy, regardless of whether that was by choice or not.
@Niko Bellic I hate doing this, but: Have you seen The Prestige? Because in that movie, there is an elderly magician who is actually young and incredibly strong, but maintains the identity of "elderly magician" at all times so he can do his magic tricks. He might have acted old and infirm all the time, but that let him perform his illusions. So I guess I'm saying that there's a difference between an idiot, and a smart person pretending to be one for the purposes of misdirection and/or voter bias management.
@deepomega Wouldn't have thought about it that way, but agree. The dissonance between GWB the dummy or the actor is absolutely relevant to evaluating politicians and the electorate. Gore is probably kicking himself he didn't learn GWB's lesson or wasn't able to master it. Romney is probably going to do the same thing.
@deepomega So what were these smart person acts that GWB did behind the scene that none of us thought he was capable of? I am dying to hear about them. If this is just like The Prestige, where is the applause at the end?
@deepomega Jokes about dumb Republicans may be low-hanging fruit comedically, but how are we supposed to look at a party, or at least a slate of presidential candidates, that are so vehemently anti-science? Are Republicans allowed to have it both ways: racing to be the guy who can most vociferously deny evolution and global warming, but with a wink that says "this is all a pandering act"? I know the answer is that politics is a cynical game, but I don't find that to be satisfactory.
Tugg Speedman as Simple Jack.
@Niko Bellic you should watch/read transcripts of gwb's gubernatorial debates with ann richards.
@boyofdestiny: Are there any synonyms I could use for "cynical" that'd make you feel better? And would it help at all if I pointed out the ways in which Democrats are cynical assholes? That's all I've got.
@deepomega Sigh. No, don't worry about it. I'm well-practiced in the ways Democrats are cynical assholes.
@deepomega how long have we been having this dry, eastern intellectual versus the virile southern-southwestern man debate?
@RonMwangaguhunga Hang on, let me go ask Sparta and Athens to fax over the archives of their listserv.
@RonMwangaguhunga
I don't care if he's dumb-dumb or crazy-like-a-fox dumb, but if Bush is Southern, I am the Dowager Empress Cixi.
Great article.
"When Perry defended his record at the debate, I suspect the applause was really for his demonstration of absolute, doubt-free conviction, which is something the right respects and admires."
This sounds like a pretty bold assumption, since the transcript pasted above indicates that the applause began at Brian Williams's mention of Texas's high number of executions, before Perry even had a chance to "defend his record."
@boyofdestiny: Yes, I would have to agree. There are some people who are black and white enough in their thinking to cheer executions because to them they "got what was coming to them." I think it's somewhat dangerous to pretend that segment of the population simply doesn't exist.
@bluebears maybe they held up the 'applause' cue card a little early?
@boyofdestiny Yes, exactly. This is the crowd that Nancy Grace has trained to despise the concept of trial-by-jury.
It's also worth pointing out that the Republicans are playing to a fearful base, and one of the main things they are fearful of is liberals taking away their access to lethal force. People who are genuinely afraid that their way of life is being stolen from them by a dark, scary Other will cheer for dead Others. Hell yes they will.
I keep rereading this thinking that on a site like The Awl, anyone who could actually take a comedy show to task for not being balanced and circumspect must be writing ironically. Right? Please tell me I'm right.
@lost_in_transubstantiation Well, yeah, but when the host of that show takes other show hosts to task for not being balanced and circumspect because it perpetuates partisanship...
@lost_in_transubstantiation Normally I'd agree, but Stewart does take plenty of "time outs" from the comedy schtick to make a serious point (even if in a humorous way). It wasn't too long ago that he had a couple first responders on his show to talk about the care (or lack thereof) they've received for health problems that were caused by the rubble. Even if he made a joke there, he was obviously making a serious point. I think a reason he's as popular as he is, is because he does seem to weigh both sides (even if he's not completely balanced) and is above the level of Twitter quality jokes (Republicans are dumb.., Christie is fat, etc).
@lost_in_transubstantiation I think it is also kind of a misdirect, taking Stewart to task as proxy.
@lost_in_transubstantiation That's what I was thinking. Not to mention the article ignores that Stewart actually made the bigger point that she's making in the end. That there is a flaw in going after the "smartest man in the room strategy" and that Perry probably isn't any dumber than Bush at least when it comes to being elected.
@scrooge "the host of a satirical news show takes actual news show hosts to task" there I fixed your comment and rendered it pointless.
@latenac That bit about the World Trade Center first responders was some good satire.
@lost_in_transubstantiation: I think part of this was also taking him to task for, you know... not being funny. Jokes about dumb republicans are like jokes about Pakistani cab drivers: offensively boring.
@lost_in_transubstantiation It's backwards day at the Awl. See the St. Mark's bookstore piece.
@boyofdestiny 1 serious even 10 serious pieces on an otherwise satirical news show does not a serious news show make.
@scrooge I don't think Stewart took news show guys to task for not being "balanced and circumspect". I think he took them to task for 1) following the usual he said, she said routine (or in other words, being TOO balanced), even when one side was clearly factually correct, and 2) focusing on trivial bullshit rather than actual issues. At least, that's how I recall it.
I think this is a great article. I do think though, that the visceral experience of meeting people who are not just pro-death penalty, but also super into it ("It takes balls to execute an innocent man") is pretty disorienting? Like, we're all people, different worldviews, empathy, etc, etc, I get it. But can't it sometimes work the other way, too? If you're deeply in a culture where it's an understood view that the death penalty= mega justice unadulterated good, can't it be important for it to be balanced, to some degree, by a reaction of "Wow, that's surprising! I find it unsettling, to be frank!" I mean, this isn't what the knee-jerk demonization is accomplishing AT ALL, so I agree with you there. But it is a high order to perfectly negotiate this charged subject, in general.
This is part of the reason why I think that Radley Balko's criticism of Rick Perry's death penalty record (http://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/12/rick-perry-poster-boy-for-limited-government/, posted well before the last debate) is the most cogent: we can talk about the proper role of government in everyday life, but you can't say that the State is too dumb to give people health insurance properly but is ALWAYS CORRECT when it comes to "ultimate justice."
@swizzard: Yes, this for me was the more important point Stewart should have been pointing up: the small government advocates advocating for a government's execution of its citizens.
@swizzard Yes. Balko's point excellent, and a very powerful argument against the death penalty.
Also powerful, I think, is the argument about the ineffectiveness of the death penalty for reasons best described in a piece I read once written by a convicted murderer turned prisoner-rights advocate. He said that he, nor any of the murderers he ever talked to, would have ever given any thought to whether or not the death penalty was an option if they got caught, because when they were on their way to doing their murdering, the question of "what will happen if I get caught" wasn't a part of the risk assessment they were involved in. It wasn't like, "I will do this if I know I will only go to jail for it." It was, "It doesn't matter what will happen to me if get caught because I will not get caught."
@Dave Bry That's backed up by psych studies as well. Our penal system (in general, not just capital punishment) is very poor at preventing crime, because people assume they won't get caught.
I think you're forgetting that Stewart's show runs on Comedy Central. He doesn't have a responsibility to take an even handed look at every issue, though I'll admit (to your credit) his jokes are usually better when he does.
@scnissen So, two things. First, it's tiresome for Stewart to sometimes want to make serious commentary, but then hide behind Comedy Central whenever somebody gets mad. Second, I wonder what percentage of, let's say, the 18 to 35 demographic watches The Daily Show as a primary source of news. I bet it's much more than zero!
@scnissen: Do any of the actual news agencies accept responsibility for taking "an even handed look at every issue" these days? I don't think the fairness doctrine is observed even as a convention any more.
I actually read the bit about giving out raisins on Halloween and owning The Blind Side on DVD as being more clever. I think Stewart was making a statement about, perhaps, the hypocrisy of such a demographic? Passive-aggressive displays of moralizing?
Again, a demographic ripe for Perry's binary justice message.
@Clarence Rosario I agree with M here. "The audience at this debate were the people that give out raisins on Halloween. They own The Blind Side on DVD" doesn't make any sense at all within the context of a national political stereotypes (which Stewart is employing).
Knowing brands of ridemover is obviously a dig at NV and AZ-type right-wing BoBos. And being a Blind Side movie fan is to be a melodrama-weak lover of the kind of white-people-save-welfare-society (largely through Christianity and the lesson of hard work) softie,both of which are totally 'types of conservatives that are the wealthy opposites of the stereotypes of against-best-interest poor God-voting conservatives...
but then that "raisins" thing? That's a stereotype of health-nut tree-hugging libtards who give out raisins to save kids from obesity-causing Butterfinger bars. Go to Wal-Mart, a stereotypical right-wing shopping Mecca, and you'll find Halloween candy by the cubic ton, but very little raisins.
And that anyone, including this right wing group itself, would need to speak in hushed tones about a thirst for blood, well....
@Abe Sauer I dunno. To me there's a strain of Women's Christian Temperance Union in the kind of moralizing person who gives out raisins on Halloween.
And The Blind Side smacks of the "some of my best friends are black" type.
I agree with the fundamental point Maria is making. I just read Stewart's joke differently. I think the riding mower bit does the rest of it a disservice.
I think Stewart is giving the audience more credit, not less, and pointing out that these people *are* smart enough to not wish for the death of innocent people. It's because these people are on a higher ground - intellectually, morally, ethically - that it shocks to have them applaud. These are your neighbors, who you would never think of as violent or angry or aggressive, who deep down, in a place beyond reason, have a strong gut reaction toward capital punishment. I don't know, I honestly can't believe it was viewed as him calling the audience stupid; perhaps it is too subtle a difference, but accusing someone of using their gut over their brain, especially when those brains seem to be functioning quite well, isn't trying to say "turns out these seemingly smart people are dumb" but rather trying to say "these seemingly smart people can still be swayed by the oftentimes irrational but obviously powerful gut."
And as for the lawnmower/blind side/raisins description, describes most people I know from home (N. Georgia). It's actually quite a nice way of showing how they are different from, say, urban dwellers *without* calling them outright stupid.
@Clarence Rosario: WCTU was a progressive movement through and through.
@DoctorDisaster Yes, but my point is that it was religious and scold-y. Not hippie.
@lapgiraffe yeah, I recognized those people from the description immediately as well. Well-meaning, neighborly, conservative exurbanites.
@lapgiraffe I agree. I didn't really read Stewart's remarks as "these people are stupid, har har".
At least this argument about the death penalty gives abortion some much needed rest on the pine so it's ready for the 4th quarter.
@Abe Sauer: Or the third trimester, as it were.
@Abe Sauer The gays are just gonna hang out in the locker room until overtime...
@Abe Sauer The right to life, until the age of 18, then go die for your Country, or maybe your State will just sentence you to death.
@whizz_dumb: Or die young from preventable disease because you have no access to healthcare.
@Abe Sauer They are similar in that they both have a "moral" and "legal" aspect. Some people are "personally pro-life" but "politcally pro-choice."
Much in the same way that I'm against the death penalty when my life is concerned.
@JoshUng Yes. But there are (practically) zero 'single issue' death penalty voters. Single issue abortion voters make up a huge, HUGE, portion of the GOP base (and a very much, but existent, smaller portion of the Dem base). A GOP candidate could literally say he or she was "for increasing profits of the rich at the expense of the poor" and be pro-life and still wrap up nearly all the same base of pro-life voters as a moderate GOP candidate. It's why "Blue Dog" democrats exist.
@JoshUng: Abortions for some, 234 executions for others.
@Abe Sauer Oh yeah, I get that. Of course, as the article stated, no Dem presidential candidate has fully opposed the death penalty, so there really isn't a chance for anybody to be a single issue voter on the death penalty (as far as president goes). It's just that those two issues have the biggest dispartiy between "what I think is right" and "what I think the law should be" for many people.
to answer your rhetorical question "Can there be any even marginally rational reason why these people might be applauding for executions?"
no, i don't think there can be any even marginally rational reason why anyone would be applauding for executions.
and part of the left's revulsion is because perry executed at least one innocent person.
hope that helps you figure this out
@joe2 Meow.
@Honest Engine I guess I don't see what's "meow" about this. It's a fact that 1) the death penalty has virtually no deterrent effect on crime; and 2) that executing criminals is much, much more expensive than locking them up for life. So, what rational reasons for supporting it are left?
Apologies to the management and all, but Winter's Tale was the purplest crap-slog I've endured in a long while.
@Daniel Sargeant I loved the purpleness of it, but even I have to say that putting it on the same level as, just for starters, Ulysses, To The Lighthouse, The Magic Mountain, A Hundred Years of Solitude or even The Adventures of Augie March is overpraise that does the book no favors at all.
I am a fan of Ms Bustillos, but her inevitable bio cutline amounts to “I am the author of two self-published books with joke titles.” I know whereof I speak since I did exactly the same thing once.
Regardless of whether the death penalty is right or wrong, I think the people of the state of Texas should wonder whats going on in their culture (and of course, they aren't alone) that 234 people did things so violent and atrocious that they needed to be removed from society. You can cheer all you want when these people are executed, but it certainly doesn't bring back whoever they killed in the first place.
"the left's self-image as intellectually sophisticated and tolerant of other viewpoints"
Those lefty hypocrites. MLK, for example. If he was truly tolerant, he would have tolerated the segregation!
@Niko Bellic: I don't think the problem is the left untolerating the death penalty, it's the left calling the right stupid.
@deepomega You have to admit, claiming your own intellectual superiority without hinting at the other's intellectual inferiority is a very difficult act to pull.
@Niko Bellic You don't have to claim intellectual superiority or hint at intellectual inferiority to make devastating intellectual, economic, moral, and legal arguments against the death penalty. In fact, they might just be that more powerful that way.
@Honest Engine By Texas standards, if you think before you shoot you are making a pretense of being intellectually superior.
@Niko Bellic: Sigh.
my tolerance ends where the lethal injection needle begins.
do. not. kill.
that is all.
Only 234 executions in the entire state of Texas? I'm pretty sure we had more abortions than that just in Brooklyn. (applause!)
Ok, this is the point where I tell the story -- as I have been all over the internet -- of Troy Davis (hey, I was linked to by Glenn Greenwald, and then in turn [indirectly, via the Greenwald post] by the NY Times, so I do mean a fair chunk of the internet!).
Troy Davis was convicted in 1991 of the murder of an off-duty police officer in Savannah Georgia. There is no physical evidence linking him to the crime, 7 out of 9 eyewitnesses have recanted -- while one of the remaining 2 has been implicated as the actual shooter -- and at least one juror has said flat-out "If I knew then what I know now, Troy Davis would not be on death row."
But Troy Davis is on death row, and what's more, he has exhausted the appeals process, and -- having lived through three execution dates -- was last week given a final execution date of Sept 21, next Wednesday.
Mr. Davis's one remaining hope is clemency; his clemency hearing is a week from today.
No matter your thoughts on the death penalty, surely we can all agree that a case that has unraveled this badly should absolutely not end in execution.
Here's what Glenn Greenwald (and the NYT) linked to last week: My post giving a little background on the case, as well as links to a petition, a sign-on letter for clergy and sign-on letter for members of the legal professions (THIS ONE IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT), as well as an address and sample letter for an appeal to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles. http://emilylhauserinmyhead.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/troy-davis-given-execution-date/
Please, please, help Mr. Davis in his clemency bid. He is almost certainly innocent of the crime for which the State of Georgia wants to kill him.
@Emily L. Hauser@twitter without looking, i bet he's black.
i am afraid to learn about his case because reading about innocent men on death row is devastating.
@Emily L. Hauser@twitter
Well... here's the petition to sign: http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=6oJCLQPAJiJUG&b=6645049&aid=12970
If you trust me and Amnesty (and various former state Supreme Court Justices and Russell Simmons, among others) that it's an entirely worthy cause, you just click through and sign, and not ever have to actually read about it -- until, please God, he gets clemency (in part through your effort) and it will be less heart-breaking. Deal?
@Emily L. Hauser@twitter ok signed my first-ever internet petition, and shared the link on my site.
@Emily L. Hauser@twitter
Thank you, very very much! I understand the hesitation, I really do.
I think it's important to take anyone to task for failing to uphold their own standards. I think The Daily Show in general walks a fine line between comedy and incisive poltiical commentary, and sometimes falls short of their own promise in going for punchlines.
However, I think far more often The Daily Show is a continuing example of a better way to do things than simply breaking them into a left right binary. Even this joke, with its confusing metaphor of raisins and lawn mowers, points to a desire to see past the traditional breakdown (whether or not the overall joke is this enlightened, I'm not sure).
That's why I take particular issue with the line "But we're never going to get to that so long as opinion leaders like Stewart continue to take every cheap shot that comes their way." Claiming that Stewart and The Daily Show "continue" to take "every" cheap shot is not only false, it's not even supported by this article. The Daily Show falls short sometimes, yes, and that's why articles like this are a good way to keep them trying to live up to their own potential, but to claim that thye continually go for the lowest common denominator is so false it makes the truth of the rest of the article seem suspect.
@rn4187 Ahoy (Maria here.) You are right that The Daily Show is in general fairer and more thoughtful than most "news" on TV. Also, right that I should have been more clear about who is taking which cheap shots--Stewart is not Olbermann, but the way this primary season is shaping up it looks like there will be knee-jerk partisanship on tap on both sides for the duration, even from Stewart (cf. the Marcus Bachmann/Seinfeld bit.) I don't know, I can see that it's really difficult to produce that show in these political circs. I am angered just as often by Stewart's false red/blue equivalency, so.
@barnhouse Can you write the false red/blue equivalency essay next? I don't like disagreeing with you : /
@boyofdestiny It is fun to disagree sometimes! That's when we can really get somewhere, when we hash it out. I'm learning a lot from the comments here.
Ok I've re-read this a couple times and I'm still not getting it. It's an article chastising those on the left who were appalled by the audience applauding after the phrase 234 executions fell out of Brian Williams mouth?
I agree we shouldn't demonize those who don't share our beliefs and we shouldn't reduce those on the right to just "dumb people" but...the applauding the death of 234 people is still appalling. Even semi-reasonable death penalty proponents have the ability to recognize the death penalty as the final tragic step in a long tragic set of circumstances that have devastated many lives along the way. There's no excusing the applause.
But to assume that rank-and-file Republicans are cheering for executions simply because they are out for blood is irrational and wrong. They are far more likely to have cheered because, as we have long known, like a majority of Americans, they support the death penalty for violent crimes...
Then, the majority are unreflective, blood-thirsty and creepy.
@BadUncle I strongly oppose the death penalty myself, and find the arguments put forth in favor of it to be totally specious. But there's all these people who are truly persuaded by these arguments. What is to be done about those with whom we disagree, however violently? They are our fellow citizens, we have to share the country with them no matter how much we disagree. They have some reason for thinking how they do; there is a discussion to be had about it. But if you just dismiss them as creepy instead of trying to reach some kind of understanding, we will get nowhere.
it's a two part solution:
first, ask them if they are christian. if the answer is yes then ask them if they've read the sixth commandment.
if the answer is no, then just spit on them, call them a godless heathen and run away.
@barnhouse: By arguments in favor, do you mean the death penalty as a deterrent? If so, I'm not sure that anyone who is pro death penalty cares whether it deters crime. I think they're simply eager to wash their hands of people they believe have committed horrific violent crimes. (And I, a death-penalty opponent, kind of get that perspective?)
@laurel Not so sure about that. I had some intersection with some political types at one point in my life who believed in the death penalty who supported it as a deterrent. At least part of the argument runs that the prison-stint culture is so ingrained in parts of criminal underclass that many criminals are not deterred by the thought of prison, but would be by the death penalty. Don't think I agree with that, but I do agree that prison isn't necessarily a deterrent or effective deterrent.
@barnhouse But to expand on what bluebears said above, I think there is a distinction between rational people who see the death penalty as a necessary part of criminal punishment, and people actually cheer executions. The former I could respectfully disagree with. The latter are still appalling.
I hate bringing religion into this, because I generally try to keep religion far, far away from my life whenever possible, but I can't deny that I still have internalized some of the lessons of my Jewish upbringing, and one of those lessons was from the Passover story. In it, after god allows the Israelites to pass through the parted red sea, he lets it close again before the Egyptians are through, and they all drown. And we are taught that although killing them was necessary for our own survival, we still do not rejoice in their deaths.
I can respect (intellectually) death penalty advocates who view it in that manner, but people who cheer the executions deserve all the contempt they are getting.
@barnhouse You know and I know that the vast majority of death penalty advocates are not arriving at their positions after rigorous ratiocination. And I'm as appalled as John Stewart at the fist-pumping response to the Texas Death House numbers.
@roboloki And they'll just quote "an eye for an eye" right back at you.
@BadUncle @major disaster I don't know why those people were cheering. There are some alternatives that I can imagine, though, that seem more likely than just yee-haw, killing people. BadUncle, I do not know how death penalty advocates in general arrive at their views. But it's safe to say that movies and TV promulgate a vengeful, murderous mentality, don't you think?
@LondonLee old testament v. new testament. if they prefer the old testament then take them as your slave and sell them.
@barnhouse Yeah, but I'm not blaming movies that also play in Europe for uniquely a American point of view. It's intellectually easier and viscerally more satisfying to demand "payback," than well-reasoned justice.
@major disaster This comment struck me because it is a fascinating account of revisionist theology! It's nearly on-par with Southern explanations of slavery as an institution of choice by the slaves.
The Israelites didn't mourn the (necessary?) deaths of the Egyptians: they celebrated it! Exodus 15 is an entire chapter of song praising God for the slaughter of the Egyptians.
"Then the prophet Miriam, Aaron’s sister, took a tambourine in her hand, while all the women went out after her with tambourines, dancing; and she responded to them:
Sing to the LORD, for he is gloriously triumphant;
horse and chariot he has cast into the sea."
@curds? I can't argue with you with respect to the Bible as I have never read it. What I wrote about comes from the haggadah we read from every year on Passover. And we've used different versions over the years and they've all had the same sentiment. I'm not claiming to be any kind of religious authority, but that is the story I've always been taught.
ETA: And actually, now that I've thought about it, there really is no conflict between what I wrote and whatever may or may not appear in the Bible. The Passover lessons are directed at *us*, telling us how we are supposed to react to the story of the Egyptians' deaths. It's not trying to describe the past reactions of the Israelites.
@barnhouse this is just the equivalent of apologizing for gay marriage opponents. There are simply no rational arguments FOR the death penalty - it's known to be an ineffective crime deterrent, and it's hideously expensive to implement. There's really nothing remaining but blood lust. How are we to "come to an understanding" with this?
@SeanP Nobody is apologizing for them. Crikey! I don't know why this is so hard to put across but as I said above: if we don't want to investigate exactly why our ideological opponents believe what they believe, why should they ever listen to us at all? What is the alternative, here, if we're not willing to respect that they have got some reason for believing what they do? In the case of capital punishment, we're talking about more than half of our fellow citizens. I repeat, I am a fierce opponent of capital punishment. But at least I halfway understand how some people might believe in the (false, I believe) claims of deterrence. There are legitimately conflicting views on the subject. I can at least start to understand it a little bit, whereas it is far harder for me to talk with/understand opponents of gay marriage, because there is not even the ghost of a rationale, there.
They're not inhuman.
I believe they were actually applauding the fact that not one of the 234 executed was infected with human papillomavirus.
"[W]hatever one thinks of the death penalty or the audience's behavior last night, the harshness, self-righteousness and simple-mindedness of these responses belie the left's self-image as intellectually sophisticated and tolerant of other viewpoints."
The right in general fears and hates doubt, and sees careful consideration of all sides as pure pantywaisted weakness; the left sees the uncertainty required for careful deliberation as a mark of intellectual strength and wisdom.
So it's ok to stereotype the right as inflexible and fearful of doubt, but not ok to stereotype them as bloodthirsty? It's a more generous view of what happened, to be sure, but what if one's inflexibility and fear of doubt leads to bloodthirst (and other ugliness we can all think of without too much effort)? I think that's the issue here?
@bshep That is just an excellent point. It's possible that the conservative tendency to inflexibility and fear of doubt (of which there is a ton of evidence, whereas in the case of the recent Republican debate we've got just the one incident and nobody has come out and said why he applauded, to my knowledge) leads to bloodthirst. I don't imagine it does, but IF, if it does, then it would be super imperative to have education and dialogue and news articles and documentaries about it and do everything you could to show the correlation, broadcast it far and wide. It wouldn't do any good, though, just to hate on those guys and yell at them.
I don't think there's anything wrong in finding applause at the mere mention of 234 executions (more than any governor in the history of Texas, and you know Texas loves some executions) appalling. To argue that there were more nuanced takes on the statement "234 executions" is giving a lot of credit to a political discourse that is mostly limited to jingoistic chants and flag-waving, in addition to Perry's active attempts to distance himself from any form of intellectualism.
My take on it (as a Texan long under the backwards knee-jerk policies of Perry) is that even if you were a supporter of the death penalty, wouldn't you want to make sure that it was carried out in iron-clad cases so that no opposing views could undermine your support? Even other Republicans within TX (notably Kay Bailey Hutchison) took Perry to task for the horrific bungling of the Cameron Todd Willingham Case and subsequent attempts to cover up those errors. If I believed in the death penalty, Perry would be the last person I would use as a spokesman.
For those not familiar with Perry's record, it really is worth looking at these cases. http://www.texastribune.org/texas-people/rick-perry/under-perry-executions-raise-questions/
Our court system is far too flawed to condone (implicitly or explicitly) the carte blanche support of executions.
@throwaway style: A backwards knee-jerk sounds really painful.
To justify the death penalty as necessary to protect society, society must have some moral goodness that makes it worth protecting. Is that moral goodness demonstrated when people are allowed to interrupt a presidential debate to whoop and holler to express their enthusiasm for executing prisoners?
Texan here so you must pay attention :)
Cheering "death" is beyond the pale, be it an abortion or an execution. So I don't know why this post exists.
But there's also this. Our dear Governor Perry has decided that Civil Tort Reform is necessary because our crazy Texas juries just wouldn't stop pickpocketing the corporate titans of the oil patch. But the death penalty is so awesome and unflawed that we let those same juries sentence the accused to death.
Solution: Make the death penalty a remedy in civil litigation. That'll show'em. Thanks Rick. Enlightening as always.
@BoHan
Corporations have a God-given right to lethal injection just like anybody else.
@BoHan Okay, cheering "death"--what exactly do you think is going on in the minds of these people while they were applauding (srs question, am v. interested)? "Yay, 'death'"? It just doesn't make any sense. Whereas we already know they generally look to government to "keep us safe". Don't you think it's likely that they were applauding for an ideology, rather than for murder?
@barnhouse
I know I'm late to this forum, but I was reading it all day - I do think it's fair to assume that a good portion of those applauding were cheering death. Yes, I think there was a "yay, death" component.
I'm not going to make the assumption that applause implies stupidity, or inferior thinking - but in doing so I also have to believe that somewhere in there, someone who would applaud executions has, along the way, accepted that killing people they don't know is fine. It's fine if it makes them feel safe. It's fine if they think that it acts as a deterrent for criminals.
You're right that there is a lot more going on - sure they are also applauding an ideology. But you can't ignore the fact that the ideology includes some sort of bloodlust. In exchange for safety, but that's the price. The price is death. You can't accept the ideology and also say "oh well, but yeah, I mean...obviously I don't want anyone to die." The ideology includes wanting people to die.
Carnivores have to accept at some point that they are killing an animal to indulge in delicious steak. When I slam my knives on the table for dinner and yell "Steak! Steak Steak Steak!" I am hungry. I am exercising my freedom to eat what I please. There is an ideology that comes with being a carnivore that I cheer.
Also though, I want a big ass slab of meat to fork into my gullet.
@djfreshie Wow I love this answer. It is cogent. Maybe I am the Pollyanna, supposing that there is no such thing as "yay, Death"... it is possible. I'm thinking of my cousins who are Republicans and in favor of the death penalty: I can see them applauding this speech but not a real execution, if they ever had to witness one; there is a decided lack of applause at those. (I'm not talking about people cheering Osama bin Laden's death after, I mean being right there. Do we still have Madames Defarge?)
@barnhouse
I think it's okay to be less cynical about what is going on in the minds of those who applaud and support the death penalty. I'm sure we all know people who are for it. They are also totally human people just like you and me. But also, they've made a choice that death is okay in exchange for something selfish. Your cousins have made that choice. Trust me, I know from republican cousins - I have one. 3 years ago he sent around an email to our family saying that sick people who didn't have proper insurance deserved to stay sick. He made the choice that it was okay that those uninsured not be treated.
Someone (I can't remember who) suggested that the families of the victims should have to administer the lethal injection. If they don't want to, the criminal continues their sentence in prison - but definitely if the victim's family wants them to go, they have to do it themselves.
@barnhouse Eugene Volokh of the popular conservative blog Volokh Conspiracy and UCLA law professor once wrote in favor of extremely painful Iranian-style executions for certain classes of heinous crimes, essentially torturing the prisoner before killing him. He advocated amending the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause in the Constitution to allow it. Here's the link: http://bit.ly/oIzCba
He eventually "conceded error" on the basis that it would be impractical to implement this in America. In fairness, many conservative bloggers found this distasteful, but the "American Taliban" argument seems to hold here.
@barnhouse You may be too young to remember Gulf War 1. A regular new feature on CNN (then, the only 24 hour news network), was the replay of Pentagon-released views from the nose cameras of missiles striking their targets. Though people weren't typically in view as the missiles would strike their targets, it was abundantly clear they were hitting occupied buildings. I remember being in a bar while roaring cheers went up with the strikes. And this wasn't even a war in which we were an aggrieved party.
So, yes, there is "yay death." And it's been around since auto de fes, public drawing and quartering, and, of course, lynching.
@barnhouse "Yay, 'death'"? It just doesn't make any sense."
Yeah, I think that's exactly the issue. I think the mistake is in assuming that therefore, there must be some sane reason for the cheering instead.
sorry, it's not "ultimate" or "mega" or any kind of justice when people are put to death for crimes they did not commit. i don't think jon stewart was really the right person to take to task for lambasting the republican base for their views. we have to remember, he's on comedy central, not the ABC evening news; he's the fake news. he made fun of an absolutely disgusting and horrifying moment in a "debate" that was rich with horror. that said, not all republicans are evil, but anyone who would cheer for that record of executions is grossly inhumane. ps - why was japan brought up in this regard as some sort of measure of civility qua death penalty? this is a culture that would train its military to suicide bomb targets and commit sepuku at the loss of honor. that is, they have a completely different relationship, socially, to death as a public act. furthermore, to say japan is an ethnically more homogenous country is a gross understate and another obvious factor in evaluating how the state carries out capital punishment. just sayin'.
the US, esp. the western US, has the legacy of "rough justice" and "get a rope." if we hope to evolve toward better standard of civility and justice, we might look to europe. not that anyone in power will, mind you.
Lemme pose a hypothetical.
If during a debate the question is asked, "Governor during your term there have been an estimated 5,000 abortions in your state-"
*APPLAUSE*
Would it be fair to call that audience a bunch of psychopathic baby murderers? I don't think so. They would likely be cheering for the right to choose, not the dead fetuses. Likewise this audience cheering for executed murderers is probably not a celebration of death, but of an image of metering out justice.
I congratulate Maria on giving Conservatives the benefit of the doubt- something Jon Stewart and most Awl readers do not.
@Milquetoast
Nobody has ever done that, though. Not to mention that it would be as extremely callous and offensive to cheer abortions as it is to cheer executions.
To be honest, I don't know why the benefit of the doubt is needed in either case. Here's a good rule: "Don't cheer unnatural death under any circumstances. Don't chant 'U.S.A, U.S.A.' Don't applaud. Don't fist pump and go 'yessssssss' Don't do any of those things."
@djfreshie That's why it's hy-po-thetical.
You can debate the humor behind Stewart & Co. but their reasoning still rests on "these people acted monstrously". They didn't. They applauded policies you don't support. Maria was brave enough to point that out and people are acting like they've had flaming dog shit thrown at them.
@Milquetoast
Sure, but that's kind of the point, isn't it? Those who support pro-choice are not very vocally proud of the thing that is happening when you have an abortion. Nobody would use a number to show how many fetuses they killed to drum up political support. That is why a lot of people describe it as "Blood thirsty." Running on a platform of "I killed 5000 babies so that you could have your freedoms" wouldn't happen. That is political suicide. However running on a platform of "I killed 254 guilty criminals" is a thing that has happened in the past, and is happening as we speak.
Yet also, I still agree that it is offensive to applaud either abortions, or executions, ideologies or otherwise. It will never be okay to applaud execution. Or Abortion. Or Euthanasia. At no point is applause an appropriate human response towards death from complete strangers of the dead.
@Milquetoast You cannot be serious? What other way is there to interpret wild cheering at the mere mention of a record number of abortions, except as "yaaaay, abortions!" I can only speak for myself, but as someone who is staunchly pro-choice I think every abortion is tragic--and yet I strongly, strongly support the right of a woman to chose it. I would cheer a politician giving an eloquent defense of a woman's right to chose, but I would never, ever hear "5000 abortions" and go "yaaaaay clap clap clap."
Likewise, it is possible to construct a reasoned argument in favor of the death penalty and support putting a certain class of convicted criminals to death. That's not the same thing as *relishing* putting people to death or *cheering* a record number of people being executed. There is no other way to describe the mindset of the people in that room as anything other than appallingly bloodthirsty and compassion-free, and it was demonstrated again last night when the crowd cheered the mention of the 30 year-old who died because he couldn't get routine medical treatment b/c of no health insurance. As if that were a good thing. Creeps.
@Milquetoast It's not a "hypothetical." It's a "straw man" argument. You may as well ask "what if a candidate had cheered the return of Elvis from within the Hollow Earth leading his army of Nazi undead?"
@BadUncle
I WOULD SEE THAT MOVIE IN A HEARTBEAT
@djfreshie Seconded.
@barnhouse
Get Bruce Campbell. Bubba Ho-Tep 2.
If you cheer for 234 executions, I wonder how picky you are about who you execute.
If you favor capital punishment, you ought to be kind of picky. (I speak as a picky person.)
@Tulletilsynet Can't everybody agree on that much at least?? Then we could just get pickier and pickier until we stop altogether.
@barnhouse
Yeah, well. I'm not that picky.
@Tulletilsynet Picky? How do you feel about mauve trim?
@BadUncle
What are you trying to do? Make me sick?
OK, so this?
Blitzer asked if under Paul’s libertarian philosophy, a sick man without insurance should be allowed to die in the hospital rather than have the state pay his medical bills. Before Paul could answer that question, shouts of “yes!” and cheering bubbled up from the audience.
@oudemia
"..should be allowed to die..."?
So you won't allow people to die? How nice of you.
Those nutty Libertarians are always so pro-death. Somebody should really institutionalize them.
@Milquetoast seriously, libertarians should be institutionalized. or just do us all a favor and go galt.
#1 - Jon Stewart is a comedian. It's part of his job to "to take every cheap shot that comes [his] way." As long as people laugh, the objects of his jokes are fair game.
#2 - That Jon Stewart, an avowed comedian, is a progressive leader is an indication of what dire straits the progressive community is in. Sure it's fine for him to be A voice, but to be one of the few? troubling...
#3 - HEARING PEOPLE CHEER ABOUT KILLING OTHER PEOPLE IS DEEPLY DISTURBING. this is not a liberal/conservative thing, this is a human thing. I, as a human being, not as a liberal, find this distressing. When someone makes light of how they also are disturbed by this, I feel oh-so-slightly better.
Great piece. Gets at a lot of what sometimes aggravates me about The Daily Show, despite my deep and abiding love for the show and Jon.
My question is: when will Stewart acknowledge that he is a legitimately influential political commentator? Yeah, it's comedy, but it's comedy about important things and it has a (usually smart) perspective. I worry about him becoming another hack like Bill Maher, just playing to people who already agree with him.
@Rod Trunq@twitter Boy, do I ever agree with that. It is plain weaselly when everyone knows that there are a ton of under-30s who watch The Daily Show rather than the news. All sorts of people take their political cues from Jon Stewart. Because seriously, where are the alternatives? The corporate media ensures that they are all of them essentially clowns, no matter what the packaging. On TV, especially.
ugh rick perry is a disgusting human being. nice white knighting though. i don't understand why you or anyone would defend perry on this record unless you are looking for a job at slate.
When Perry defended his record at the debate, I suspect the applause was really for his demonstration of absolute, doubt-free conviction, which is something the right respects and admires.
Yeah, keep whistling past the graveyard. Do you also suspect that when Michael Strahan sacked quarterbacks at the beginning of the 2001 season, fans applauded his years of training and individual determination, in tandem with the careful defensive planning of Michael Nolan? As for me, I think they cheered a quarterback going down. Hard.
Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, and a body count is a body count.
I suppose this sort of piece is supposed to be "unpredictable" and "refreshing" but it seems like a very familiar brand of pseudo-contrarianism to me. Rick Perry is a cretin and people who think execution is an applause line are ghouls. I could list a lot of reason why I hate Democrats, too, but that's another story.
Hey, just wondering about Maria's thoughts on the debate last night where audience members cheered again this time for the hypothetical death of a young uninsured person.
Hello bluebears! I came by to comment on this very matter because a bunch of people emailed and Twittered me about it, so anyway this is what I wrote to Brent Cox earlier.
Do I think it was a beautiful thing that happened at last week's debate, of course not, and we should all be talking about why it happened--in an ideal world, everyone together. Do you see (I believe this so so passionately,) we are creating the conditions wherein ordinary, sane Republicans CAN'T speak with us candidly. Are there some nutjobs in the tea party, you betcha, I am not talking about them (and even though it was a Tea Party event last night, the scattered cries of "Yeah!" in no way compared to the applause Rick Perry got last week, and maybe it is my fancy but I sensed discomfort when those few people yelled "Yeah!")
A lot of people were very quick to read into this piece that I am saying it is okay that people should want to kill anyone and applaud for that. No. What I am saying is that the left was way too quick to jump on those who applauded for Rick Perry last week, imagining the worst when there were more credible and more charitable explanations for it.
@barnhouse: I hear what you're saying. But I honestly cannot think of a more credible explanation for it. Charitable? Yes. But sometimes the charitable interpretation does more harm than good. Can't we ever just call a spade a spade? I think people who attend these debates are most likely the most rabid of political observers and I also think that it hardly strains credulity that this very right wing and passionate group would cheer the death of murderers and even I was a bit surprised about the jubilant reactions to letting an uninsured 30 yr man die. But again, that's their gut reaction and I think we'd all be remiss if we tried to make excuses for it.
ETA: Not to say ALL self-identified Republicans feel this way or would ever act this way. But this group of people did.
@bluebears The fact that this is a very thorny question is what makes it so interesting to talk about--! Thanks very much for your reply. Please watch the clip of last night's debate again (here it is via Raw Story). The fact is, there was no cheering about letting anyone die. Maybe four or five people yelled out "Yeah!" after Blitzer's question. Even at a Tea Party event, there was NO cheering after "let them die". The cheering came before and then again after, when Paul claimed that in the 1960s "the churches took care of 'em", which is hardly the same thing. And yet this morning there is a huge rush to claim otherwise, to condemn people for something that didn't even happen. It's troubling.
@barnhouse Thank you for clarifying. The problem is one of treating political opponents like villains instead of rivals. As long as people (ie Stewart and followers) see Republicans cheer for a line they don't agree with, then jump on that as proof of insanity, nothing will improve.
A laugh is a hell of a lot more supportive than applause. And just as I can laugh at a rape or abortion joke from a comedian, that doesn't mean I support rape or dead fetuses. Give people some credit is all.
Part of the problem you people are having with analyzing these events is your confusion of 'liberal' and 'left'. The Left are people who favor peace, freedom and equality, and think there are not enough of these qualities in the life of their communities. Liberalism, on the other hand, is simply the political system of capitalism. Leftists and capitalists are sometimes allied, but in general the Left finds capitalism too authoritarian, too inegalitarian, too aggressive. Liberalism is usually rational -- it's a rational consideration of what will best support capitalism -- whereas the Left's attachment to peace, freedom and equality is just as visceral as the Right's attachment to power, authority, wealth, social status, law, order and the military virtues.
The reason there is no significant Left in American politics is that liberals, for the last 100 years at least, have been at considerable pains to destroy and co-opt leftist groups and movements. Most recently, for example, the Democratic Party, a liberal organization, first infiltrated and used the anti-war movement against Bush, and then, when it looked like the election of 2008 was going to come out in their favor, sabotaged it. That's why there were big demonstrations against Bush, and then suddenly nothing; why UFPJ is a shell of its former self, and the proggies (liberals who want to be leftists but can't make the leap) wander around with haunted souls.
As for understanding the 'bloodthirsty Republicans', I suggest reading Flannery O'Connor. She was a devout, conservative Roman Catholic who lived in the Bible Belt and rather admired the 'religious enthusiasm' of its inhabitants, while seeing them as an outsider from an opposed tradition. I'd suggest starting with 'A Good Man Is Hard To Find', but don't stop there. In a sense, you are dealing with blood thirst, but it's much more complex than simple sadism and superstition. It's also pretty scary.
@Anarcissie I don't think the divide between "liberal" and "left" is quite so sharp. To start with, US politics isn't currently based on these considerations so much as it is on the urgent matter of preventing governing bodies from being hijacked by Tea Partiers (cf. Wisconsin.) Any leftist worth his salt almost anywhere in the US is thus confronted with really hideous conflicts regarding the best application of his energies. We will see a lot of leftists refuse to vote for Obama next year, for example, though I don't know who their Nader will be. And we will see a lot of very passionately committed leftists (even the pink-unto-red, who would prefer to live in a real socialist state) cast a 'practical' vote for Obama, out of a (to my mind, defensible) desire to deny Romney or Perry the White House.
Your second paragraph is great and I agree totally. I have friends who are union activists who've spent the last ten years in total misery, though suddenly they seem to be feeling a bit perkier. There are always more surprises down the road.
I have read a bit of O'Connor, and sure, but I think that today's extremist Tea Party has many populist, flame-fanning sources. Fox News, especially the Fox News of the Bush years, is to blame most of all.
@barnhouse -- A comment to another article is probably not a good space for a full development of the relation between liberalism and the Left, so I'll skip over that. I was mostly concerned with the author's view that the people who cheered Perry's numerous executions should be treated reasonably, that we should try to understand and sympathize with their point of view, instead of following our gut reaction -- horror. The two reactions -- 'Let's be reasonable about this' and 'This is an abomination in the sight of the Lord, or whatever I believe in', exemplify liberalism and the Left.
The cardinal principles of liberalism (see John Locke) are life, liberty and property, and the greatest of these is property. The cardinal principles of the Left are peace, freedom, and equality. There can be some overlap between these two sets at times, but the reactions of the two parties to many issues will differ sharply. For instance, the liberal reaction to American Negro slavery was the Fugitive Slave Act; the Left reaction to slavery was Abolitionism.
There is a further issue here in the particular kind of rightist which the people who cheered for executions represent. Like the Tea Partiers, they are radical extremists who are uninterested in compromise; the liberal approach of moderation and reason is not going to work with them. This is why I recommended reading Flannery O'Connor's works, although now I fear the 'Southern Gothic' grotesquerie therein may blind liberal readers to the very pressing and very widespread truth of her subjects and their beliefs.
@barnhouse I don't quite get why we have to be tolerant and understanding of them just because Leonard Cohen thought it seemed like a good idea in 1985. Barack has spent 3 years trying to be reasonable with the others. They laugh at him. The media laughs at him. Now I am laughing at him. What has reasonableness gotten anyone? Ask Adlai! Well okay... A d speaking of which you kinda dropped the "rich" bomb when you described that lovely man and well since presidential candidates are mostly rich it seemed a little unfair.
Skookum, come to think of it, doing whatever Leonard Cohen says to do is a pretty sound policy. And I didn't mean for Adlai's being rich to sound snarky. The poor man could hardly help it. It is true, too, that reasonableness has availed little against congressional Republicans in this term. The fact is, unfortunately, that unreasonableness would have fared no better. They'll do literally anything to take this President down. (I'll enjoy helping to prevent that, I must say.)
"I have no idea what Stewart is on about here, though I guess we can take it as read that his remarks constitute a stab in the general direction of, 'these Republicans are regular, caring people, only bloodthirsty, and riding around on lawnmowers of the highest quality.'" - Funniest thing I've read in ages. I literally hurt myself.
I used to have so much respect for The Awl before I read this piece.
Oh my God, me toooooo! :)
I'm glad we're off the pedestal. Now you can look at us for what we are!